Consolidation of Section 138 NI Act cases permitted, transfer ordered using Section 406 CrPC to avoid conflicting findings

SC held that though the offence under Section 138 NI Act is complete upon dishonour, jurisdictional issues can be addressed under Section 406 CrPC to avoid conflicting findings. Observing that all six complaint cases arose from the same transaction and that similar consolidation had been permitted earlier, SC found it appropriate and in the interest of justice that they be tried together. Noting that four cases were already pending before Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, and only two before Nagpur Courts, Maharashtra, SC ordered transfer of the Nagpur cases to Dwarka Courts. The transfer petitions were accordingly allowed.

---

---

Issues:
Transfer of criminal cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 to a different jurisdiction for joint trial.

Analysis:
1. The transfer petitions sought to move complaint cases under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 from Nagpur to New Delhi for a joint trial. The cases involved dishonoured cheques issued for a crusher plant purchase.

2. The jurisdictional issue arose as the cheques were dishonoured in different locations, leading to cases filed in Nagpur and New Delhi. The petitioners argued for joint trial due to the interconnected nature of the transactions.

3. The respondent contended that Section 142 of the Act gives exclusive jurisdiction to the Nagpur Courts for cases related to the first two dishonoured cheques. They relied on legal precedents to support their argument.

4. The Supreme Court referred to previous judgments to clarify the jurisdictional aspects of Section 138 cases. It highlighted the importance of the place of dishonour in determining jurisdiction for trial.

5. The Court emphasized that the offence under Section 138 is complete upon cheque dishonour, but prosecution is delayed. The jurisdictional issue has been a point of contention, leading to the need for legal clarity.

6. Legal precedents like K. Bhaskaran and Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod cases were cited to establish the components of the offence under Section 138 and the significance of the place of cheque dishonour for jurisdiction.

7. The insertion of Section 142(2) in the Act clarified the jurisdictional aspect concerning dishonoured cheques. The Court's jurisdiction is tied to the location of the bank branch where the cheque was presented for collection.

8. The Court further explained that the non obstante clause in Section 142(1) does not override the power of the Court to transfer cases under Section 406 Cr.P.C. for the interest of justice, even in cases under Section 138.

9. Considering the interconnected nature of the cases and to avoid contradictory findings, the Court allowed the transfer of cases from Nagpur to New Delhi for a joint trial, emphasizing the convenience and interest of all parties involved.

---